Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like

    Science vs Dogma

    Let's do a simple story perspective to begin this thread. Imagine a religious conference attended by Buddhists, Christians, Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, etc. and they are going to discuss the future of Earth. Now let's imagine a scientific conference attended by people of all these same religions to discuss the future of Earth.

    Those people in the former conference who believe in dogma cannot alter their positions in any way to accommodate the views of another. They are forbidden to do so. The people in the latter conference are free to review whatever is put forward, to discuss it freely, change their minds if necessary and work together.

    In science, it is not tradition and hierarchy which determines right and wrong but facts. Since empirical facts are universal, everyone can agree without much argument. Dogmatic sects cannot sincerely discuss their beliefs with an open mind. It is forbidden blasphemy.

    Let's look at cholesterol, first it was horrible, then not so bad, then bad again, then good and bad. Now nobody is really sure. As more information is available, new understanding is available and science rewrites itself. Science does not say: "This is how it happened and no one can doubt it." Science says: "This is our best understanding of the facts." New research can always change the direction of science. On the other hand, there is never new research regarding Dogmas. They are static and inflexible.

    Which seems better to you, to follow a philosophy that is driven by actual understanding and can accommodate new information or to follow a philosophy of stagnation which is forever set in stone, regardless of new understandings? I do not see this as a very difficult concept. Science is the only philosophy which allows for the philosophy itself to evolve to mirror our understanding. For this reason it is superior to all religions and other philosophies, most notably anything dogmatic.

  2. Likes MindTrap028, Sigfried liked this post
  3. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    Hello erroneous and welcome.

    There are several issues I have with the position in the OP.

    First, there is a category issue in regards to religion and science. Religion is generally concerned with the "why" of things, and science is generally concerned about the "how" of things.

    So in the religious conference they may all agree that the earth is going to be destroyed by fire because God is angry at the word for XYZ reasons.

    Science can hold that the earth will one day be swallowed by the sun because gas X interacts with substance Y in ABC way.


    While your argument may be correct and that the religious will never change their mind, science isn't really dealing with the same discussion to begin with. Even if science has 'NEW' evidence that says our future is one of "heat death" and not a fireball, it is still not dealing with the same issue or question.


    ----
    The second issue is that science is not immune to dogma. There are all kinds of human forces at work within the scientific community, the largest being one of money.
    New theories can be met with open hostility, fraud and laziness do occur, money is a huge driving force.

    Science is not the holy philosophy you seem to make it out to be.

    ----
    Finally, you seem to commit the appeal to novelty fallacy The idea that because something is new it is therefor better.
    Maybe it is the case that dogmas don't need to change because they are correct to begin with.
    To serve man.

  4. Thanks kaptonok thanked for this post
    Likes theophilus, Sigfried liked this post
  5. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    Mr Gradgrind in Dickens Hard Times loved facts but if you read the novel you will find he has to find his way far beyond them. So it is with us all in practical. day to day life.When the technician gets home to his wife and children he leaves facts behind and enters a much more important world. So we must give facts thier due but not live by them.

  6. Likes theophilus liked this post
  7. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Hello erroneous and welcome.

    There are several issues I have with the position in the OP.

    First, there is a category issue in regards to religion and science. Religion is generally concerned with the "why" of things, and science is generally concerned about the "how" of things.
    Science deals with cause and effect. The cause is why and the effect is how. Your interpretation is illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So in the religious conference they may all agree that the earth is going to be destroyed by fire because God is angry at the word for XYZ reasons.
    Yes. Religious meetings are notorious for coming to an agreement, NOT.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Science can hold that the earth will one day be swallowed by the sun because gas X interacts with substance Y in ABC way.
    And this will be the most likely truth. It will have nothing to do with God's disapproval. Paul said that people should not get married because there wasn't time before the end of the world to raise children. All religious end of the world predictions have been flat out wrong. Apparently you do not keep score of those.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    While your argument may be correct and that the religious will never change their mind, science isn't really dealing with the same discussion to begin with. Even if science has 'NEW' evidence that says our future is one of "heat death" and not a fireball, it is still not dealing with the same issue or question.
    It certainly is. There are behavioral sciences as well as biological sciences which study exactly that. You take a very narrow view of things.


    ----
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The second issue is that science is not immune to dogma. There are all kinds of human forces at work within the scientific community, the largest being one of money. New theories can be met with open hostility, fraud and laziness do occur, money is a huge driving force. Science is not the holy philosophy you seem to make it out to be.
    No. Science is not immune to prejudice but it is immune to dogma. Prejudice is a human condition. Dogma is when somebody decides he is the one who should decide for all ages. Science does not appoint such prophets.

    ----
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally, you seem to commit the appeal to novelty fallacy The idea that because something is new it is therefore better. Maybe it is the case that dogmas don't need to change because they are correct to begin with.
    That is a wrong assumption on your part. In any endeavor, the law, business, government, etc. having more information to draw on will create new ways of seeing the big picture. As the information background increases the decision makers can see more clearly. This is simple logic. It is not the newness that has intrinsic value but the increased level of knowledge and experience. Only dogmatic cults accept that one man has the authority to say the way it is for everyone for all time. I speak of the author who wrote the words, because if God felt that way he would say so himself and not rely upon imperfect people to push their ideas which disagree..

    ---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by kaptonok View Post
    Mr Gradgrind in Dickens Hard Times loved facts but if you read the novel you will find he has to find his way far beyond them. So it is with us all in practical. day to day life.When the technician gets home to his wife and children he leaves facts behind and enters a much more important world. So we must give facts thier due but not live by them.
    This is a non sequitur. What exists far beyond facts? Fiction? We should ignore facts and live by fiction? That is absurd and insulting to all English reading peoples. The only shared resources we have known to date, are empirical facts expressed through language. Just because someone can write a series of self-fulfilling fictitious logical systems that look amazing does not make them correct. This is why we require testing and replication. A test that cannot be replicated proves nothing. Or better yet, it proves a con man did the test. The world has gone crazy taking the proverbial metaphor of parable and allegory and misinterpreting them as real and literal..
    Last edited by Erroneous; June 25th, 2015 at 01:46 PM.

  8. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    Quote Originally Posted by ERRONEOUS
    Science deals with cause and effect. The cause is why and the effect is how. Your interpretation is illogical.
    Causes are not "why" answers. They are another "how" answer.

    A rock sits on top of a piece of paper. No description of that by science will answer WHY the rock is no the paper.

    Quote Originally Posted by ERR
    Yes. Religious meetings are notorious for coming to an agreement, NOT.
    I think you took that example the wrong way. I was not saying religion would agree, but it is logically possible.
    Their agreement is not required for the point to be true it just simplifies the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ERR
    And this will be the most likely truth. It will have nothing to do with God's disapproval. Paul said that people should not get married because there wasn't time before the end of the world to raise children. All religious end of the world predictions have been flat out wrong. Apparently you do not keep score of those.
    I'm not certain what this answer has to do with the point I was making.
    Maybe you are forwarding that Science inherently has the best possible answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by ERR
    It certainly is. There are behavioral sciences as well as biological sciences which study exactly that. You take a very narrow view of things.
    '
    No philosophy deals with "why" science is a different subject.

    Quote Originally Posted by ERR
    No. Science is not immune to prejudice but it is immune to dogma. Prejudice is a human condition. Dogma is when somebody decides he is the one who should decide for all ages. Science does not appoint such prophets.
    sure it does, because people do and scientists are people.
    Positivism is on such dogma.


    Quote Originally Posted by ERR
    That is a wrong assumption on your part.
    What assumption ? How is it wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by ERR
    In any endeavor, the law, business, government, etc. having more information to draw on will create new ways of seeing the big picture. As the information background increases the decision makers can see more clearly. This is simple logic. It is not the newness that has intrinsic value but the increased level of knowledge and experience. Only dogmatic cults accept that one man has the authority to say the way it is for everyone for all time. I speak of the author who wrote the words, because if God felt that way he would say so himself and not rely upon imperfect people to push their ideas which disagree..
    [/QUOTE]
    Yes, but new information doesn't mean new conclusion is necessary.
    for example, back to the end of the world where science (for sake of argument) says we are going to end in heat death and religions (all of them for sake of argument) say that God is going to judge us with a fiery ball of vengeance.

    All the scientific facts that can be observed, may support heat death. That doesn't actually counter the God's judgment proposition. suppose that God did say and eventually will judge the world with fiery vengeance, that would not necessarily change the scientific facts.
    Meaning that the two are consistent with each other. So the evidence doesn't make it more or less likely.


    As to the"author" points, I don't see the relevance.


    --Summary
    Religion and science answer two different questions.
    Science is not necessarily relevant to religious dogma.
    Science has it's own sets of dogma and is equally susceptible to all the ills of religion (corruption, extortion, greed ..etc)
    To serve man.

  9. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    Quote Originally Posted by MT028
    --Summary
    Religion and science answer two different questions.
    We are on the fringe of some interesting knowledge since discovering a gene, (VMAT2), which explains why people have "supernatural" experiences. It predisposes people to perceive that they are part of something larger than themselves. Some scientists call it the God gene. We may soon not only know why people believe in mystical deities, we may know how to replace such views with something healthier.


    Science is not necessarily relevant to religious dogma.
    Religious dogma may not be relevant at all.




    Science has it's own sets of dogma and is equally susceptible to all the ills of religion (corruption, extortion, greed ..etc)
    Not so. People are susceptible, however, science will endure and survive them. Science is a philosophy of process. We learn, we test, we theorize, we prove. Men can try to circumvent this process, but peer review will bring science back to where it belongs, eventually. It has a built-in correction mechanism. How does a dogma that is wrong correct itself?

  10. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,164
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    Quote Originally Posted by ERR
    We are on the fringe of some interesting knowledge since discovering a gene, (VMAT2), which explains why people have "supernatural" experiences. It predisposes people to perceive that they are part of something larger than themselves. Some scientists call it the God gene. We may soon not only know why people believe in mystical deities, we may know how to replace such views with something healthier.
    That is a how, and I'm certainly not accepting that as evidence of some kind. too thin. It's like... I heard once that cholesterol is bad for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ERR
    Not so.
    o... I see... good argument. (sarcasm)

    Quote Originally Posted by ERR
    Religious dogma may not be relevant at all.
    yea, your not really addressing anything I have said.

    I appreciate your time and you can have the last word.
    To serve man.

  11. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is a how, and I'm certainly not accepting that as evidence of some kind. too thin. It's like... I heard once that cholesterol is bad for you.
    Ignorance is not an argument.


    o... I see... good argument. (sarcasm)
    You quoted a statement and ignored the argument. Seems ignorance is your weapon of choice.


    yea, your not really addressing anything I have said.

    I appreciate your time and you can have the last word.
    Your entire argument amounts to: "Oh yeah?" I have spoken of empirical facts and you have spoken of your opinion without the slightest support. I put forth reasoned arguments and you completely ignore them as if: "I'm not impressed." is an argument. It is not. That is the retreat cry of those too lazy to work to support their position.

  12. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    Science deals with cause and effect.
    Hi Erroneous and welcome to ODN.

    That's right, but science only deals with material causes. Religious/spiritual principles also deal with cause and effect, btw; however, at a more fundamental level; what we sow we reap. Maybe one day both agencies will meet to give us a more complete picture of causation.


    Dogmatic sects cannot sincerely discuss their beliefs with an open mind.
    Please define dogmatic sects. Perhaps you are not referring to some of the world major religious/spiritual theologies/philosophies like:

    Christianity
    Islam
    Hinduism
    Chinese folk religion
    Buddhism
    Tribal Religions Shamanism, Animism
    Sikhism
    Judaism
    Baha'i Faith
    Confucianism
    Jainism
    Zoroastrianism
    Shinto
    Taoism


    Please clarify what you mean by open mind. Religious/spiritual principles generally address and deal with the spiritual aspects of life, while science deals with the material aspects. Actually science tends to be somewhat dogmatic about the view that there is nothing else but materialism; while religious/spiritual principles generally acknowledges both.

    Perhaps you are not familiar with the Biblical principle of "Come now, let us reason together." Isaiah 1:18
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  13. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    20
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Hi Erroneous and welcome to ODN.

    That's right, but science only deals with material causes. Religious/spiritual principles also deal with cause and effect, btw; however, at a more fundamental level; what we sow we reap. Maybe one day both agencies will meet to give us a more complete picture of causation.
    We sow what we reap? Isn't that just another way of saying we suffer the effect of what we cause?



    Please define dogmatic sects. Perhaps you are not referring to some of the world major religious/spiritual theologies/philosophies like:

    Christianity
    Islam
    Hinduism
    Chinese folk religion
    Buddhism
    Tribal Religions Shamanism, Animism
    Sikhism
    Judaism
    Baha'i Faith
    Confucianism
    Jainism
    Zoroastrianism
    Shinto
    Taoism


    Please clarify what you mean by open mind. Religious/spiritual principles generally address and deal with the spiritual aspects of life, while science deals with the material aspects. Actually science tends to be somewhat dogmatic about the view that there is nothing else but materialism; while religious/spiritual principles generally acknowledges both.
    A dogmatic sect is one that believes it is the only "way". All other "ways" of living are wrong. They believe this because it is written in their holy materials and for no other reason.

    Perhaps you are not familiar with the Biblical principle of "Come now, let us reason together." Isaiah 1:18
    Let's look at a breakdown of that passage:

    Come now, and let us reason, together, saith the Lord,.... These words stand not in connection either with the preceding or following, but are to be read in a parenthesis, and are thrown in for the sake of the small remnant God had left among this wicked people, in order to comfort them, being distressed with sin. These, seeing their sins in their dreadful colours, and with all their aggravating circumstances, were ready to conclude that they were unpardonable; and, seeing God as an angry Judge, dared not come nigh him, but stood at a distance, fearing and expecting his vengeance to fall upon them, and therefore put away the promises, and refused to be comforted; when the Lord was pleased to encourage them to draw near to him, and come and reason with him: not at the bar of his justice; there is no reasoning with him there; none can contend with him, or answer him, one of a thousand; if he marks iniquity in strict justice, none can stand before him; there is no entering the lists with him upon the foot of justice, or at its bar: but at the bar of mercy, at the throne of grace; there the righteous may dispute with him from his declarations and promises, as well as come with boldness to him; and at the altar and sacrifice of Christ...

    http://biblehub.com/isaiah/1-18.htm


    God is entreating the faithful to reason with him, not any one group to reason with another. You have taken it out of context. In no way does this suggest anyone have an open mind, rather, it is another example of "trust the lord blindly and completely. He will ignore your sins."

  14. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,519
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    Quote Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
    We sow what we reap? Isn't that just another way of saying we suffer the effect of what we cause?
    From a theological perspective, not necessarily. If one sows wisely, the effect reflects the wise choice (cause). If one sows foolishly, the effect reflects the foolish choice (cause). Perhaps that's why the Golden Rule is central to the world religions. “Do unto others (cause) as you would have them do unto you (effect).

    A dogmatic sect is one that believes it is the only "way". All other "ways" of living are wrong. They believe this because it is written in their holy materials and for no other reason.
    What groups are you referring to? If we consider Christianity, which you're probably not referring to, as just one example, the majority of American Christians believe that “Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life.”
    http://www.pewforum.org/2008/12/18/m...-eternal-life/

    God is entreating the faithful to reason with him.
    That’s right and he doesn’t seem to care much about their differences. He deals with their differences with these words: "though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." This is the overture of mercy extended to a sinful nation if it will only repent."
    http://www.truthmagazine.com/archive...GOT020339.html

    It’s interesting how humans tend to focus on differences of believers though God's focus for man seems to be on transcending the differences. (Now there's an open, unprejudiced, non-dogmatic enlightened mind.) Perhaps this is because his vision is all-seeing, whereas we only see a tiny slice of the whole which can cause some to assume their slice is the only valid, ‘right’ slice until they are able to see and realize there are more slices.
    Last edited by eye4magic; July 2nd, 2015 at 06:48 AM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  15. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Science vs Dogma

    In science, it is not tradition and hierarchy which determines right and wrong but facts.
    It would be nice if scientific organizations and communities rose above matters of politics and popularity, but unfortunately as a human institution it falls short of perfection.

    The field of science is constantly reinventing itself and overturning old models to install new ones. We didn't stick with Newtonian mechanics because it was right (it isn't); we stuck with it because it seemed to be right and our current understanding of science, i.e. the understanding of science that was grounded in that particular time and place (i.e., tradition), led us to conclude that it accurately described the universe.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. ID ain't Science!!!
    By Slipnish in forum Politics
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: November 8th, 2015, 08:53 AM
  2. Marian Dogma: Catholic and Evangelical Perspectives
    By maximus in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: September 22nd, 2005, 09:03 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 5th, 2005, 09:51 PM
  4. Ever seen Dogma?
    By Razor-Tongue in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: June 14th, 2005, 01:44 PM
  5. Mormon dogma changing?
    By Withnail in forum Religion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: August 21st, 2004, 03:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •